Pretty much agree with everything you said. I think the film would've been much better had it simply attempted to be a remake, rather than trying to tie itself to the '82 film.
You forgot to mention that the Norwegians didn't seem to record their finding with a camera and that the way the sheet of ice becomes uncovered from the UFO was entirely different from what we see in the Carpenter film.
Actually you can see Henrik in some of the earlier scenes holding a recording device.
Just to be clear here, you do know that the 1982 film was not the original-it was a remake itself. The orginal starred James Arness as "The Thing."
Technically, the original was the short story Who Goes There, which is most similar to the 1982 film.
I am aware of both The Thing from Another World and Who Goes There. Just thought typing 'the original' was quicker than typing "John Carpenter's The Thing"
Leave a Comment:
A poorly-made prequel to a cult-classic
I'm going to be honest with you all; I went into this expecting the worst. I was around for the initial trailers and they filled me with dread. They seemed to betray everything that made the original film great by effectively marketing itself as a generic "Guy dragged down dark hall screaming" schlock horror flick, but I went to see it anyways. Mainly just as a form of closure. When I arrived at the cinema to find I was the only viewer in a empty theatre room, in the middle of summer, I knew I was in for trouble.
Now, I want to get some positives out before I rag on all the negatives, and one is that the makers of the film had obviously done their research on the original film. If you're a fan of the 1982 flick you'll find plenty of visual nods and explanations as to the state of the Norwedgian camp (I.E. the axe-head in the wall). This at the very least gave the film some feeling of familiarity, a kind of assurance that the makers were genuinely trying as opposed to just trying to ride on the original's glory.
Unfortunately, although the makers seemed to be fans, they don't seem to have understood what made the original such a suspenseful film. The original film acted both as a sci-fi horror and a kind of murder mystery, in which both the protagonist and the viewer tried to get to the bottom of finding out who the thing was. This added a level of paranoia and tension to the film, as everyone started to turn on one another as The Thing sabotaged their attempts to find it and pin the blame on others. In here, however, The Thing is reduced to a jump-scare monster. Revealing itself the moment an inkling of suspiscion is cast upon it. The transformation scenes themselves, one of the most famous and terrifying parts of the original, are done here in CGI of varying quality. Sometimes it looks good, other times it just looks awful.
The best I can say about the cast is that the acting is competant. None of the characters have any personality beyond blunt stereotyping (try to sum up half the cast beyond just "Bearded Norwedgian", I dare you), and Mary Elizabeth Winstead is simply wasted in her role as the main character. Who spends most of the film either in a state of semi-boredom or contained shock.
Overall, it's your standerd summer horror flick. Not very good in it's own right, and downright terrible as part of The Thing franchise.